A pox on all your houses

This is the same title that I used about fifteen years ago, inside one of my self-published books, to describe my rejection of all the world’s most important ideologies, whether religious or secular. Those that are always being used to justify the rotten behaviour of the tiny coterie of powerful people and their hangers-on, towards all the world’s much more numerous, but considerably less powerful people. In the original version of this proverb, the “pox” was a disease (such as smallpox or chicken pox) that was supposed to be visited upon both sides (or “houses”) of any particularly ridiculous controversy between two equally obnoxious opponents. In my version, it applies especially to such thoroughly atavistic, and inter-related, ideologies as neoliberalism and neofascism, that have become more and more hegemonic with every passing year. Since they were first introduced into the world, together, by the Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990), one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite allies, and his libertarian friends from the US empire (“the Chicago boys”). Thereby signalling an end to the worldwide, anti-fascist entente that had been formed during the Second World War.

With the onset of the current, even more worldwide, coronavirus crisis, the pox that I was referring to during the opening years of this century has stopped being only a metaphor and has become very much a part of reality itself. My original idea was to use that metaphor to also express my disdain for such other once-powerful ideologies as totalitarian communism. During the Cold War (1945-1991), that ideology was supposed to have been promoted by all the ruling bureaucracies of the Soviet bloc, including the USSR (1922-1991) and, at least originally, the PRC (People’s Republic of China). None of those regimes, however, ever practised anything remotely resembling the dictionary definition of what communism is supposed to be all about. So far as I can tell, all of them have now been replaced by governments combining support for the selfsame neoliberalism and neofascism that are also being practised these days by all the governments that used to belong to the former “Western” bloc of nations, led by the same US empire that supported Pinochet. Talk about ideological convergence!

Not only that, but the Chinese regime, which still bears its deliberately misleading title, adopted away back in 1949, has now become the original home of the COVID-19 virus, that was officially recognized as such only a few months ago. The worldwide pandemic most certainly could have been prevented if the Chinese government had really wanted to close down, as some ruling party officials apparently tried to do, all the wild-animal meat-markets that have apparently existed for centuries in the most poverty-stricken regions of that country. People all over the world are now suffering from the effects of that virus, and not just in China, either because they became sick themselves, or because they know someone who was stricken by the disease. The ever-increasing numbers of dead people have been deliberately under-reported in dozens of different countries, the overall number of victims greatly increasing death rates all over the world, especially for older people like myself. Not only directly from the virus itself, but also indirectly through the deliberate, worldwide, negligence of normal treatment of all the other diseases, to make way in the overworked hospitals for those stricken by the pandemic.

Literally billions of people have also had their lives turned upside down as a result of all the efforts at containing the disease, particularly through mass confinement, which has also had a devastating effect on the entire world economy. Dozens of countries have racked up enormous government deficits and greatly increased long-term debt burdens, that will undoubtedly plague millions of younger people’s lives for decades to come. The world’s most vulnerable categories of the population are already suffering more than anyone else, as they always do in every such crisis, with the result that most parts of the world have been set back several decades in their development strategies. Wiping out any of the gains that some of them may have managed to make over the past forty years, in spite of the constantly worsening effects of  neoliberalism and neofascism in almost every country. All in all, the virus has brought with it a major escalation in popular misery in every part of today’s world. Hardly the sort of thing that a self-described “communist” party was supposed to have been bringing about, not only at home but everywhere else as well.

As a result, all those people who want to blame China for having made a monstrous error in its socio-economic policies are entirely justified in so doing, as long as they do not succumb to any of the exotic conspiracy theories about how the Chinese rulers are supposedly using the virus to help them take over control of the entire world. To be sure, they do seem to be trying to take over the world, as soon as possible, but I doubt very much that they would also be dumb enough to try to control something as eminently uncontrollable as a virus. In any case, ultra-stupid leaders of many other countries, such as the one who runs the USA, have recently taken to blaming all of their own problems on the PRC, the “Trumpster” (rhymes with “dumpster”) himself threatening to cut off all ties with China. Which would be exceedingly difficult to do these days, given the fact that almost total reliance on China’s manufacturing industries was, and still is, the central characteristic of the joint neoliberal/neofascist alliance between those two empires, now more than forty years old. That was originally designed not only to get rid of a serious rival, the already declining Soviet empire, once and for all, but more importantly I suppose, to avoid paying “inflated wages” to millions of supposedly “unpatriotic” US workers.

Just as ridiculous as any Trump tweet are all the knee-jerk reactions of ordinary, anti-Chinese racists all over the world, including those here in North America, who stop “Chinese-looking” people in the street every day to berate them, even in some cases to physically attack them, in “retaliation” for what they have supposedly done to the world. Very conveniently refusing to realize that none of those Chinese-looking people outside China, nor for that matter any of the real Chinese people inside China, who do not belong in any way to that country’s very small circle of rulers, can possibly be blamed for doing anything of the sort. In a totalitarian dictatorship, and there are several dozen of them scattered all over the world, every significant act of every citizen falls under the exclusive control of that country’s ruling class, no matter which ideology it is officially supposed to be upholding.

Canadian rock musician Bryan Adams was also taken to task recently for having posted an anti-Chinese rant on social media, using a lot of swear words, for which he has since abundantly apologized. He has nevertheless been denounced by many other social-media addicts as a racist for so doing, as reported in the “Montreal Gazette” (May 13, 2020). Which is true enough on the face of it, just as long as everyone acknowledges, after all, that a straightforward critique of Chinese policy toward so-called “wet markets”, minus any exaggerations and any swear words, is not racist in and of itself. Racism does not include repeating something that most scientists in the world, including most of those in China, believe to be true. It would be just as racist to avoid telling the truth about Chinese policy merely in order to make dictators like Xi Jinping feel good about themselves. Racism, after all, consists just as much in attributing something good to some particular ethnic group, but also something bad to some other group, for any non-scientific reason based on exclusivism.

In Québec, for example, it would be racist to claim that China is solely responsible for all the deaths attributed to COVID-19 in any of our long-term care centres. Rather than pointing out that the virus would not have succeeded in killing off nearly as many thousands of people if succeeding Québec governments had not set up a very dangerous, poorly-run, disgusting system of (non-existent) care based almost exclusively on the profit motive. Not only in the horrendous, privately-run centres but also in the public ones, that were supposed to copy the private system as much as possible by doing everything they could to avoid any cost over-runs or deficits. Thereby turning the social-democratic welfare state into a neoliberal/neofascist state instead. Canada’s federal government also contributed to those deaths by spending a much smaller percentage of money nowadays than they used to be spending a couple of decades ago (twenty percent instead of fifty percent), to help the provinces pay for their ever more expensive health and social services.

In the current crisis, people born since 1965 cannot remember a time when governments were supposed to be kind to ordinary people, and to protect them from the excesses of capitalism, rather than doing exactly the opposite. So those younger people (most of the entire world population nowadays) have a tendency to think that it makes no difference if all the world’s old and sick people, living in long-term “care” centres, are in private or public institutions. They also think the same sort of thing about public or private day-care centres, or public or private schools, and so on. For the simple reason, that since the joint onslaught of neoliberalism and neofascism, most governments tend to treat people under their care just as poorly as any profit-making enterprise ordinarily does.

None of that, however, can be used by the Chinese government to legitimize what seems to be a well-orchestrated campaign inside Canada, as well as inside many other countries, to convince everyone outside China that any time that anyone criticizes the Chinese leadership for any reason at all, those critics are necessarily guilty of racism. Instead, what everyone ought to be doing in this kind of controversy is to honestly try to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” all the time. Not just in the fake-news fashion that US supporters of Donald Trump are always doing, while pretending to be doing exactly the opposite, but for real this time. Not all criticism of China is necessarily racist, just like not all criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitic; some of it is, and some of it is not, it all depends on what is being said and in what context. Accusing the USA of practising imperialism because of its ultra-domineering behaviour, in many different parts of the world, is every bit as justified as accusing the PRC of also adopting imperialist behaviour. Even if in so doing it has not yet killed quite as many ordinary people (at least outside of China proper) as the USA has in recent decades.

In the same way that there is nothing racist about criticizing Muslim terrorism, or any other kind of religious terrorism, for which the number of dead victims also keeps constantly increasing, even though the number of victims being created by the virus these days may turn out to be a lot greater. Likewise, criticizing fundamentalist Muslim women for wearing religious clothing that deliberately sends an anti-feminist message, promoting what some people call voluntary slavery, is perfectly legitimate, even if the wearing of such clothing is obviously not nearly as violent as terrorist attacks always are. Nor is covering one’s face for atavistic, religious reasons at all the same as covering one’s face for rational, sanitary reasons during a pandemic.

In other words, neofascist behaviour is neofascist behaviour, no matter who does it. Reactionary people who deliberately ignore social distancing nowadays, whether they do it for religious reasons or for ultra-individualist reasons, are not contributing to any worthwhile cause. Criticizing people for such anti-social behaviour ought not to be condemned, it ought to be praised instead, since it is in everyone’s best interest. Let’s get real here. Those who enjoy running around, like some ultra-conservatives in the USA, proclaiming that “We are NOT all in this together”, are making the same kind of mistake (although not always with the same horrible consequences) that the Chinese big-shots made when they refused to shut down those wild-animal meat-markets, in the first place.

A lot of eternally optimistic people are also saying over and over again these days that we humans ought to be taking advantage of the current crisis, which is to say using the pandemic as an opportunity to solve many of our other long-lasting problems once and for all. For example, they want all the world’s governments to join together in promoting much more useful international cooperation than ever before, which would include putting an end to such abominations as the several dozen regional wars still going on in various parts of the world. As well as abandoning racist attitudes toward the ever-increasing numbers of people fleeing particularly devastating forms of imposed deprivation. While at the same time allowing all the world’s governments, even the most impoverished ones, to build up thoroughly adequate, nationalized stocks of appropriate medical equipment for the remainder of this pandemic, as well as for any future ones.

Those optimists, however, never seem to get around to explaining how exactly we are supposed to accomplish such major feats nowadays, not only the ones identified above but also all the other ones. Such as totally reversing the long-lasting trend toward environmental degradation of the natural world, COVID-19 being a particularly devastating consequence of that same degradation. Or reversing the always more horrendously huge income gap between the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor. Do those optimists really believe that all the world’s most important problems really came about by accident and were not actually put into place on purpose by the world’s richest, most powerful and most influential people? Do they genuinely expect such people to just sit idly by in the near future and watch the world’s governments, somehow completely liberated from the neoliberal/neofascist tandem, put into place the exact opposite of what the world’s most powerful people have been trying so hard to accomplish for so long?

It seems to me much more likely that all the world’s most antediluvian leaders, not just the political leaders but those in every other sphere as well, will decide instead to profit from the current world crisis to get rid of any existing vestiges of democracy, or social equality, or feminism, or resistance to racism and imperialism, that still persists in various different places. Why would neofascist governments like the one in Colombia, or neoliberal corporations like Amazon, abandon their tried-and-true strategies from the recent past, in order to adopt completely different policies instead? What’s in it for them? Where is the extremely well-organized, worldwide, afraid-of-nothing, human liberation movement springing up in every possible country, that would be capable of getting rid of so many different kinds of oppressors once and for all? And replacing them with what kind of new world order that would be capable of resisting every possible urge to replace the old oppressors with just another repeat performance of exactly the same sort of thing all over again, as already happened to the world’s only theoretically communist, democratic-socialist and national-liberation movements?

In order to do something really different on our next attempt at changing the world, we have to realize that there is more to being a “good neoliberal/neofascist reactionary” than just the reasons that have so far been listed for all the different kinds of ultra-elitist behaviour. For example, the current worldwide income gap between a very few people now “earning” 100 million US dollars per day, and a very large number of people still earning only one or two dollars per day, was not just caused, as is so often claimed, by extreme greed. In my opinion, all those people who consider themselves to be much more important than others are really searching for the immense shot of dopamine (apparently controlled by the striatum) that comes only from deliberately mistreating as many other human beings as possible, as much as humanly possible, over an extended period of time. In other words, a form of poorly-disguised sadism, on a world scale.

As a result, the deliberately reactionary people operating in the economic sphere of activity (otherwise known as big business) could not have been expected to be satisfied for long by the relatively more limited rates of profit that were available to them back in the “thirty glorious years” (1945-1975), prior to the onslaught of neoliberalism and neofascism. Especially when they were being taxed by dozens of different governments at a much higher level than they have been more recently. They desperately wanted to get back to the rates of all-for-themselves profit that they used to enjoy during the (partly fictitious) “gilded age” of total economic liberalism (laissez-faire) that presumably prevailed throughout the nineteenth century. They were not at all satisfied by the “neomercantilist” expansion of government “interventions” into the capitalist economy, and society, that took place in varying degrees between the 1880s and the 1980s, under the influence of inter-imperialist colonial rivalry, the two world wars, the Great Depression and the most important military interventions of the Cold War (Korea, Vietnam, etc.).

A similar kind of analysis should also be entered into when social scientists try to explain other forms of planned atavism on the part of any other sections of the minuscule minorities that we choose to call “world leaders”, each in its respective sphere of activity. (Which, as all keen observers of society realize, are not at all so neatly separated from every other sphere as those analytical requirements would seem to dictate.) Political leaders of entire countries, for example, are not just interested in extreme political control over their respective societies for reasons of efficiency, or to promote excellence, or any of the other b. s. reasons constantly being offered up by the world’s most successful dictators (the ones who don’t always appear to be dictators). They will use whatever means that different societies make available to them, in order to get into power and to stay in power forever.

In countries using some form of “more-than-one-party on the ballot” electoral system, that could mean manipulating millions of under-educated voters into believing that some particularly stupid elitist individual will help them fight against “the liberal swamp” currently running society. Even when that individual in fact merely represents the swampiest section of the same ruling elite, rather than any genuine alternative. Donald Trump’s neofascist electoral slogan, “Make America great again” (that he borrowed from ultra-right-wing agitator Steve Bannon), also seems to have inspired dozens of other political leaders all over the world, especially in countries that have always avoided copying the USA’s particularly uncertain kind of electoral system. Who are all adopting very similar slogans anyway, such as “Make China great again”, “Make Russia great again”, “Make Iran great again”, “Make Egypt great again”, “Make Hungary great again”, “Make India great again”, “Make Brazil great again”, and so on and so forth, all over the world.

Even most national liberation movements, that initially promised not to hog all the social-development funds in the country exclusively for the people at the top, also ended up instead trying to make Angola, Algeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe and dozens of other such countries “great again”. Every country currently being run by an exceptionally narrow-minded political elite, that does not want to run the risk of sharing power at some point, even with other people very similar to themselves, has found its own version of that Trump slogan quite useful indeed. None of the world’s politicians these days seem the least bit interested in doing anything at all to bring about real social change. Not now, not ever.

To be sure, all the most important chieftains of the world’s most important private enterprises, such as Jeff Bezos from Amazon or Jack Ma from Alibaba (whether or not they are still officially running the giant companies that they initially founded), are at least as elitist and at least as anti-social, as any of the political leaders directly or indirectly referred to in the above list of countries. They all came into power, and managed to stay in power for a very long time, pretty much in the same way as did the Mark Zuckerberg character who was depicted in the movie about Facebook, which is to say without being unduly influenced by any considerations having to do with such “sissy slogans” as “fair play” and “due diligence”. The most successful of those “business politicians” being the ones who, once they have clawed their way to the top, manage to protect their powerful positions by seeking even greater adulation from the world’s ordinary proletarians. Such as playing God by becoming “one of the world’s leading philanthropists”, and giving as much money to their favourite worthy causes as most large governments are capable of giving.

This brings us to all those other world leaders also playing God in the original sense, running all the world’s major religions as a kind of necessary ideological back-up for making sure that billions of people all over the world are tricked into believing that the heavens themselves are requiring them to support their political leaders and their business leaders, simultaneously. Such as the hundreds of millions of evangelical Christians in countries like the USA, adhering to such popular slogans as “God helps those who help themselves”. Which is a kind of pentecostal obfuscation to the effect that it is perfectly okay in everyday life to avoid treating “thy neighbour as thyself”, and to get rich at other people’s expense instead, just so long as one nevertheless believes in the right kind of Christianity and contributes once a week to missionary efforts aimed at spreading “the Word”. Not to forget interpreting certain passages from the Bible literally, such as the one about supporting Israel no matter what, even if the people running that country these days could not possibly represent in any viable way the Israeli people living there back in ancient times.

Every other major religion in this world is also run by the same kind of people, who pick up on dozens of very different kinds of supernatural myths invented hundreds or thousands of years ago in dozens of different cultures, and attempt to use those ancient or medieval myths to direct millions of other people’s lives nowadays. Every ultra-right-wing political orientation, and every voluntary-slave support group for every form of private or state capitalism all over the world, depends on the capacity that religious leaders possess to constantly reinterpret age-old belief systems in creative ways. To make sure that billions of ordinary people can be accused of some form of blasphemy toward Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Sikhism, or Buddhism, or Confucianism, or Shintoism, or animism, etc., whenever they “stray from the paths of righteousness” and end up refusing to kowtow to their country’s, or their culture’s, designated leaders.

From a moral standpoint at least, all these different kinds of official behaviour could perhaps be seen as a kind of modern, or social application, of the deliberate, “legacy”, slaughtering of the world’s largest mammals. That was apparently carried out by our hunting and gathering ancestors (according to such well-known historians as Yuval Noah Harari), in practically every region gradually occupied by human beings during the first 300 000 years of our existence as a species. From a social point of view, that is to say directed largely against other human beings, it even more closely resembles the attitudes of the various ruling classes that have lorded it over the “inferior” classes (slaves, peasants, artisans, workers and so on), for the past 6000 years, in all the urban-based societies known as “civilizations”. That were gradually set up, in most parts of the world, following the agricultural revolution and, much later on, the industrial revolution, as depicted in such monumental works as Chris Harman’s 728-page reference work, “A people’s history of the world”, published in 1999. In other words, it looks like the sort of organized sadism that I was describing earlier has been going on, although not in such a sophisticated fashion as in more recent periods of history, for quite a long time.

In any case, it seems to me that the world’s most atavistic political, economic and cultural leaders nowadays, promoting such ideologies as neoliberalism and neofascism in various different ways, are certainly the most important people exhibiting anti-social behaviour these days. But they are definitely not the only deplorable people behaving badly in this world, just because they seem to possess an over-active striatum, running amok chasing dopamine fixes all the time, in a particularly determined fashion. There are also quite a large number of other very well-known people chasing fame every bit as obsessively as the top-ranking politicians and the big-shot investors promoting shareholder-rights. This other group includes highly successful singers, actors, artists and players performing in the world’s richest professional sports teams, who spend a great deal more of their time self-promoting than they spend honing their craft. Some of these people also use philanthropy as a particularly useful method of self-aggrandizement, but most of them just sit around pretending to dislike their favourite paparazzi instead.

The exaggerated search for dopamine, at all costs, also applies to dozens of other categories of harmful human behaviour, including self-inflicted harm, which takes place more or less equally in all the different social classes. Such as in the unfortunate cases of extremely obese people, some of them weighing hundreds of kilograms, who keep on shovelling food into their mouths all the time, no matter what the outcome. Or, even more obviously, those other unfortunates who are constantly consuming large quantities of psychotropic drugs (appropriately called “dope”), quite often giving themselves (accidentally or otherwise) a fatal overdose of some toxic substance, or mixture of substances. Drugs like alcohol and tobacco are also over-consumed in huge quantities by many other unfortunate people, in spite of all the publicity about moderation that many public agencies are constantly dishing out.

Self-inflicted harm, however, is definitely not the only kind of sadism practised by people belonging to any one, or to all of the social classes. As has been pointed out recently in hundreds of news reports, the confinement strategies used against the coronavirus have also had the unintended consequence of setting up an ideal situation for particularly violent people, almost all of them male, to beat up, terrorize and otherwise dominate the women in their lives. Sometimes some of those women in the human pecking order will pass on some of that violence to their children as well, or even originate it in some cases, but in most cases it is the ape-men themselves who also beat up on the children.

Many of those dominant males are simultaneously taking advantage of this unforeseen opportunity to engage in sexual sadism as well, even more than they were already doing beforehand. These sexual sadists are probably the category among the various, socially undifferentiated, kinds of rotten behaviour that resembles the most the socially dominant categories previously mentioned. Especially the world’s most important private-capitalist and state-capitalist founders, and practitioners, of neoliberalism and neofascism. In the sense that sexual sadists do not like their victims to participate in any form of (imposed) sexually related desire, but instead insist on mistreating their victims to the greatest degree possible, because that is what gives them by far the greatest pleasure. Domination is much more important to people with a severely over-developed sense of self-worth than is mere exploitation, because it helps them “prove” (at least from their jaundiced point of view) that their victims are much less important than they themselves obviously are, and therefore “deserve” to be dominated and exploited to the nth degree.

This is the kind of overweening elitism that is being promoted whenever establishment organizations focus on the search for what they call “excellence”. For them, promoting excellence does not mean just performing ordinary tasks in an exceptional way. It really means convincing other people not to fight against their oppressors, but instead to join forces with their illustrious leaders and to “solve” all of humanity’s problems by supporting their betters fully. Using consensual conformism and deliberately avoiding critical thinking, except when a truncated form of it can be reserved for the denunciation of “misleading”, anti-elitist ideas.

An excellent example of this sort of thing, during the current coronavirus crisis, is to treat everyone on the front lines of the fight against the virus, such as nurses and orderlies working in long-term care centres, as heroes. Their job, helping older people who have been infected with the virus as well as with such previously existing conditions as diabetes, then becomes not just a job but an outstanding example of devotion and bravery, “in the face of death”, sometimes “making the supreme sacrifice” for their nation. Which means treating those front-line workers in exactly the same way as the millions of actually rather ordinary, conscripted soldiers were treated during and after the Second World War. Who, most of the time, were not heroes at all and in fact survived the war by getting out of the way as often as they could.

It is quite similar in many ways to the Stakhanovite movement that started up in the USSR during the forced industrialization of the 1930s, when a worker called Alexey Stakhanov out-performed his assigned quota of factory work, and was then turned into a model “hero of socialism” by the Soviet regime. In other words, normal, regular work was considered insufficient, and people were encouraged instead to develop (paradoxically) anti-social, anti-union behaviour by deliberately working much harder than everyone else. Thereby making it possible for the regime to completely ignore all its bureaucratic failures by relying on “heroes” to fill the gap between what their system was normally capable of doing (over and above just staying in power), and what their system had to do to ensure group survival. Not to mention simultaneously making all the ordinary workers look like slackers by comparison.

Curiously enough, the over-performance of all these public-relations-created, long-term care-centre heroes in the current crisis, as well as all the war-time soldier heroes and the Soviet worker heroes of days gone by, also has a lot in common with the ultra-individualist philosophy of extreme reactionaries like Ayn Rand. Currently represented in Donald Trump’s USA by such well-known libertarian senators as the conveniently-named Rand Paul. The point being that we are all supposed to be solving the problems created by COVID-19, as well as by the ecological crisis, the economic crisis and the inequality crisis, etc., by adopting heroic ultra-individualism and relying on our favourite “guardian angels” to do whatever is necessary. Including dying off in great numbers if need be, to offset all the problems created by neoliberalism and neofascism over the past several decades.

This false-heroic attitude, relying on someone else’s heroism, is just as much a part of the strategy always being adopted by ultra-elitist individualists in their constantly reiterated tendency to always blame everyone on the bottom of society for everything that is going wrong. “Hit them while they’re down!” means not giving any more public money to “problem people” of all sorts. Such as the chronically poor, those exhibiting the wrong skin colour, especially poor, often non-white, women with way too many children, some of them coming from unknown fathers. Or alcoholics, or the mentally ill, or the chronically unemployed, or those billions of people happening to live in any one of Donald Trump’s “sh—hole countries”, in short anyone caught “forcing polite society” to bail them all out. Which, of course, serves to hide the fact that the top of society is dominated by legions of money-grubbing, tax-evading champions of slavery and, when that is not available, champions of paying the lowest wages possible to their workers. Legions that are dominated at the very tip-top by the leading denizens of the “financial services industry”, located as far away as possible from any social utility. Just the word “social” all by itself makes those excellent people’s skin crawl.

These exceptionally “heroic” ideas all being delivered to the ignorant masses every day by authority figures in government, or by senior bureaucrats in the health and education “industries” and or by the CEOs of large, impersonal corporations, in the kind of double-speak that comes from continually consulting public-relations and communications experts. So that all the world’s most important messages, concerning the COVID crisis and all the other related crises, are always coming at people with real information constantly mixed in with “little white lies”, half-truths, insinuations and conspiratorial scenarios, in an immense jumble of contradictory facts and figures. Each one of those authority figures at the end of the day telling as many fibs as Donald Trump is capable of tweeting in an average night.

In the midst of a pandemic of this importance, one would expect even the world’s most intransigent individualists, at least those at the top, to take a more intelligent approach to what is happening to the world that they own, or at least that they feel they own. The same pro-business conservatives are always arguing that if any private company behaved like any (fictitious) government agency in some particular situation, it would go bankrupt, or its executives would be sent to jail. Curiously, however, the folks from big business have themselves been behaving a lot like the fictitious government agency in that oft-repeated, pro-business argument.

Because they completely ignored all the warnings issued over and over again by the catastrophe experts from the pro-business Davos organization, warning them over the past few years that they should be preparing to deal with upcoming epidemics, and pandemics, in the near future. The same type of warnings were also repeated by the USA’s Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as by well-informed individuals like Bill Gates. Most of the people at the top nevertheless continued to apply neoliberal, just-in-time strategies for the production of everything, including letting most basic medical equipment be produced exclusively in China. It turns out that the pro-business people are being hoisted on their own petard, having behaved every bit as stupidly as the fictitious government agency in their own anti-government argument!

Not to mention the fact that any discussion about epidemics and pandemics always includes dozens of references to what is known as “herd immunity”, during which human beings act like any other animals by developing, or not developing, sufficient antibodies to provide people with protection against such diseases. Among the world’s most important big-business people, there are quite a few of them who are successful ranchers, who presumably know a thing or two about herd immunity, just by taking care of huge herds of semi-domesticated animals. Those ranchers make a profit out of exploiting those herds not just during every quarter-year (just-in-time) but instead year after year, decade after decade.

If we want to be really cynical about all this, we could therefore presume that the world’s most important big businesses ought to be treating their customers, in this case human beings, at least as well any other large herd of animals. To be sure, capitalism, whether private or state, does indeed seem to be a horrible, inhumane system, but even from a strictly capitalist point of view, one would feel that economically-enlightened, big-time investors would somehow be able to treat their human herds (the rest of us) just well enough that we would not start dying off as quickly as in the current crisis. Or becoming so afraid of dying that we start running around ruining the world economy with “stupid, anti-capitalist” ideas about social distancing. After all, we have to presume that the majority of the world’s big-time investors are not stupid as Donald Trump, whose debts have become larger than his personal fortune, and who therefore needs to remain president of the USA long enough to get his own business ventures back into a profitable situation.

The virus of power

Clifford Lincoln is a retired politician who used to be a well-known minister of the environment, at first (1985-1989) in the provincial (Québécois) Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, and then again (1993-1996) in the federal (Canadian) Liberal government of Jean Chrétien. At the ripe old age of 92, he has just written an article published in “The Montréal Gazette” (April 21, 2020): “What COVID-19 teaches about governance: Our leaders need to do better at planning and addressing long-term challenges”. He started out by describing the panicked reaction of governments and institutions all over the world, most of them responding to the current coronavirus crisis like the proverbial emperor without any clothes, “afraid, unsafe and unsure”.

Then he went on to underline that “the challenges we face as a collectivity are increasingly long-term ones”, challenges like the population explosion, the constant desecration of nature, huge social and regional disparities, incessant conflicts over ethnicity and faith, much larger numbers of environmental and geopolitical refugees all over the world, as well as multiple epidemics, some of them turning into exceptionally murderous pandemics. His main message being that governments and institutions in every part of today’s world desperately need to get beyond short-term, crowd-pleasing strategies in order to concentrate on adopting “long-term anticipatory, preventive and reformative planning”.

On that point, I could not agree with him more, as anyone capturing the gist of my blog postings over the past seven years can attest. Unfortunately, I was not overly impressed as a citizen with the legacy of Mr. Lincoln’s tenure as an environment minister, surrounded as he was by much more pragmatic politicians like Bourassa and Chrétien, who certainly did not share his own apparent commitment to “compassionate liberalism”. Those folks, like most of the other politicians in power, in Canada and in Québec, participated after all in the worldwide neoliberal onslaught of total governmental subordination to giant corporations, that began back in the early 1980s. At the federal level, the most intensive period of helping big business focus exclusively on short-term profit maximization took place during the Steven Harper government, when the Conservative Party reigned uninterrupted between 2006 and 2015.

But in Canada, just like in dozens of other countries all over the world, it would not be appropriate to put all the blame on such intentionally elitist organizations as the Conservative Party of Canada, or the much larger Conservative Party in the UK, or even the fake-populist Republican Party in the USA. Donald Trump’s occasional attempts to portray himself as a friend of the people, or as an economic nationalist, are completely bogus and ineffectual, especially because of his enormous tax-cuts for ultra-rich corporations and humungous individual fortunes.

The neoliberal, “soak-the-poor” approach was also perfectly represented by several Liberal parties as well, in various different countries. Not only the Liberal Party of Canada, during Jean Chrétien’s reign (1993-2003) and Paul Martin’s reign (2003-2006), but also the Liberal Party of Québec, which became even less government-interventionist than before during the tenures of Jean Charest (2003-2012) and Philippe Couillard (2014-2018). Both of those premiers were also involved in encouraging, rather than fighting against, the corruption of various provincial and municipal institutions by a particularly sleazy group of organized “entrepreneurs”.

As if that were not bad enough, the federal Liberal regime of Justin Trudeau (2015 to the present) also harbours more than a few short-sighted, elitist friends of big business, such as Transport Minister Marc Garneau. While Garneau does not seem to be quite as reactionary as some of his Conservative predecessors, he has nevertheless done everything in his power, at least prior to the arrival of the virus, to make sure that giant corporations like the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railway and Air Canada can always get away with being as unsafe and as rate-gouging as they want to be. In order to present a truly honest picture of the situation, therefore, Clifford Lincoln should have also lambasted many of his fellow Liberals for having deliberately rejected any kind of long-term planning, aimed at ensuring a better future for everyone, rather than for just a tiny, select, group of upper-class cronies.

I also did not agree with the decision that most people in Québec think about whenever they remember Clifford Lincoln nowadays. Namely, his decision to leave the Bourassa government back in 1989, in protest against his boss’s attempt to preserve the integrity of the French Language Charter in Québec from the assaults launched against it by the Supreme Court of Canada. In my “right-honourable” opinion, one of the most important things that all government leaders, in all countries and at all levels, should also be doing, in addition to long-term anti-elitist planning, is to refuse to simultaneously promote imperialist attitudes toward less-powerful jurisdictions. That means not only making sure that mid-sized empires like (English) Canada do not succeed in dominating and mistreating smaller jurisdictions like francophone Québec, but also in making sure that middle powers like Canada (including Québec, for the time being) are not simultaneously being dominated by much larger, world-dominating empires, such as the one in the USA (located right next door), but also including the “People’s” Republic of China.

Not to forget that any anti-imperialist strategy like this one would also have to include making sure that all countries, including Canada and Québec, are also not dominating and mistreating even smaller ethnic and linguistic nations, particularly indigenous peoples like the Innu (Montagnais) population, in northeastern Québec and in the neighbouring Labrador section of Newfoundland. In other words, nothing that any government anywhere does to develop the kind of long-term, all-inclusive planning that Clifford Lincoln is suggesting should be contributing to any strategy that is not truly all-inclusive. Inclusive, that is, not in the sense of every group of people having to put up with whatever neofascist crap that every other group of people wishes to throw at them, but in the sense of trying to collectively develop some kind of worldwide, multifaceted, social-democratic, “cooperative commonwealth federation”. (An expression borrowed from the 1932-1961 “CCF” party, that first introduced Canada’s currently mismanaged public-health system.) Doing all of those things simultaneously, while still surviving the current corona crisis, is, to say the least, a very tall order indeed.

A major reason why everyone ought to be as anti-imperialist as possible is that in order to overcome any massive threat on a worldwide scale like the COVID-19 invasion, international cooperation is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, as we are finding out once again at the present time, making world cooperation work is extremely difficult, when practically every country, and practically every region of every country, refuses to trust every other jurisdiction (representing a separate people). All that mistrust is, however, entirely justified, because of all the incredibly self-centred jockeying for power among rival big-time financiers and their close friends in politics and organized crime, from every part of the world, that has always gone on in the past, especially in the recent past. While there is no doubt that China made a monstrous mistake by failing to completely shut down its wild-animal meat-markets (and/or by letting that particular animal virus escape from a nearby laboratory), there is also no doubt that the worst possible way to react to that horrible error was when the USA’s dumb-ass president cut off the most important source of funding to the World Heath Organization (WHO).

In spite of all its very numerous shortcomings, the WHO is a necessary part of preventing the world’s poorest countries from suffering even more immensely from the virus than any of the world’s richer nations. And also thereby at least trying to make sure that no matter what any reasonably well-off jurisdiction manages to accomplish in controlling the onslaught of the disease, will not then be completely undone by its subsequent re-importation from any one of a large number of much poorer, much more afflicted, regions. To be sure, it is always possible that some of the more anti-democratic leaders of the poorer countries could just keep all that help from the WHO for themselves, and refuse to share any of it with the poor people under their respective jurisdictions. Nevertheless, we still have to at least try internationally to do the right thing, because we are all in this together, regardless of how many ultra-individualistic profiteers, and confinement-busting egomaniacs, any particular country, rich or poor, may harbour in its midst.

I also have to underline a fundamental fact that did not show up anywhere in Clifford Lincoln’s article. That is the very important concept according to which all the different crises that he mentioned are constantly intersecting with, and negatively influencing each other all the time. One of the most devastating ways in which this happens is the constant expansion of human habitats, caused by combining an ever-increasing human population with short-term profit maximization, practised by an ever-expanding number of private and state-capitalist firms, all over the world. Thereby taking over more and more regions, or ecosystems, that used to be inhabited only by plants and wild animals, and bringing ever-increasing numbers of human beings into direct contact with animal pathogens that none of us ever had to face before.

We should also never forget that the vast majority of all the popularly elected regimes in the world, as well as the vast majority of all the factions ruling the world’s authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, are equally guilty of having adopted quite similar, short-term, crowd-pleasing strategies. Almost all of them combining varying doses of elitist neoliberalism and ultra-right-wing populism (otherwise known as neofascism), in one way or another. Which means that in a country like the USA, for example, it is abundantly insufficient to promote the election of the Democratic Party’s neoliberal Joe Biden as a “decent” alternative to the more neofascist Republican Party’s Donald Trump. Like the well-known Canadian cartoonist, Terry Mosher, did in “The Montreal Gazette” on April 16, 2020, when he depicted Biden wearing a cap reading “Make America decent again”, in an obvious parody of Trump’s own “Make America great again” cap.

The problem with supporting someone like Biden comes from the fact that neoliberalism is not just a strategy popularized back in the 1980s by right-wing populist politicians like the UK’s Margaret Thatcher and the USA’s Ronald Reagan. It has in fact been supported over the past forty years by every successive US regime (and many other regimes in many other countries), including the Barack Obama administration (2009-2017), when Joe Biden was the vice-president. To be sure, the “Obama-care” program in the health sector, although wholly inadequate to deal with the problem that it was addressing, was at least a small step in the right direction. The USA is obviously even more under the control of neoliberalism nowadays than it was under Obama, and not just because of the Republican Party’s total rejection of Obama-care. In reality, Donald Trump’s obsessive-compulsive fixation on pretending that he does not also belong to the “liberal establishment”, is totally fictional.

It has to be frequently repeated that neoliberalism was not just set up from the beginning in order to help private capitalism reassert control over some of the world’s richest countries, that had supposedly drifted too far away from old-fashioned, nineteenth-century laissez-faire (based on short-term profit maximization), under the influence of various left-wing nationalist, communist and social-democratic parties, all over the world. Neoliberalism also surreptitiously reintroduced a new form of fascism (or ultra right-wing populism) into the more or less democratically-elected part of the world, by ensuring that the most vulnerable people in every country would have to pay for the revival of neoliberal “shareholders’ rights”. In other words, today’s astronomical gap between the world’s very few richest people and the world’s very numerous poorest people did not just happen. It was deliberately amplified and distended over the past forty years, to an extent never before witnessed on this planet. A remarkable sort of “social distancing”, after all, although not exactly the same kind as the one now being used against the coronavirus!

The incredible error that some people are making, about not treating neoliberalism as an antechamber of neofascism, became very obvious to me when I was reading the book, “Hamilton: The Revolution”, written by Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, about the hugely successful musical first performed in New York City in 2015, during the Obama administration. One of the most important aspects of that musical was the frequent use of black actors and singers to portray several of the most important figures in the life of one of the USA’s “founding fathers”, Alexander Hamilton, including such lily-white characters as the first US president, “Indian” fighter and unrepentant slaveowner, George Washington. A kind of reverse “cultural appropriation” that became immensely popular, at least in theoretically “compassionate liberal” circles, when Barack Obama was president.

The dominant, mainstream, wing in the Democratic Party, currently being led by Joe Biden, would have everyone believe that they represent a more progressive kind of capitalism than the kind favoured by Donald Trump and his ultra-conservative minions. Unlike their isolationist Republican adversaries, they claim to be fervently anti-racist and anti-sexist, as well as being less elitist, less militarist and even less imperialist than those other jerks. Which sounds like it could be true, at least to a certain extent, whenever Donald Trump starts sounding off, as he is constantly doing, about how wonderful he thinks all the white supremacists in the USA really are, or about how good it is to go around grabbing women by the pussy, or about how what a great guy Vladimir Putin really is, or about how pro-Chinese the WHO leaders unfortunately are, or about how we should be injecting people nowadays with disinfectants, and so on and so forth, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

The problem with those Democratic Party pretensions is that the kind of neoliberal policies that have often been promoted in the past by leaders like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, cooperating in a “bipartisan” way with the Republicans by agreeing to cut back on various social-welfare programs, is completely unacceptable. The underprivileged people in the USA have had their backs against the wall with extreme poverty of neoliberal origin for the past forty years, and it does not help them in the slightest for elitist Democrats to “occasionally” side with even more elitist Republicans, just in order to “make it possible to cooperate on running the country in these polarized times”.

In reality, neoliberalism is nothing but “fascism with a human face”, falsely anti-elitist, falsely anti-racist and falsely anti-sexist. In the USA as in so many other countries, the people at the bottom of the heap are constantly having to put up with even more difficult living and working conditions nowadays than they already had back when neoliberalism was first introduced. This has been obvious from the very beginning for people with a democratic socialist point of view, and has become ten times more obvious for everyone during the current pandemic, which unfortunately includes the extremely negative, economic and social consequences of such old-fashioned, but still absolutely necessary, virus-control policies as the “social distancing” mentioned above.

What some people refer to nowadays as “racialized” populations, like the USA’s black and Latino minorities, not to mention the “native American” population, are suffering much more intensely from neoliberalism, and from the corona crisis, than are people belonging to the white majority. Although, as usual in such discussions, it must also never be forgotten that poor whites are also suffering in even greater numbers, if not to the same degree, simply because there are so many more millions of them than there are millions of people belonging to specific minority populations. Women are also suffering much more intensely than men, all over the world, for the simple reason that they too tend to be much more often situated at the bottom of the heap, working in excessively difficult, less well-paid jobs more frequently than most men do. Particularly when it comes to taking care of most of the world’s children, and also taking care of older, handicapped people, many of whom are now living in chronically under-staffed care homes.

Mainstream Democrats in the USA, and people like them in every other country in the world, may still want to argue that their “fascism with a human face” is still preferable to the “fascism with an ape face” being supported by almost everyone in the Republican Party, and other parties like it, all over the world. And it is nice, after all, for world leaders everywhere to at least pretend not to support such disgusting ideologies as racism and sexism, like most of the leaders of the USA used to do when the “Hamilton” musical was first performed five years ago. But the fact remains that neoliberal/neofascist elitism automatically begets racism, sexism, militarism, imperialism and all the other rotten political attitudes. Which means that merely having black people play the roles of white revolutionaries from the past is not really such a good idea after all.

Especially when the revolutionaries being portrayed were only opposed to direct control of their fortunes by the British monarchy and its empire. Those (temporary) American anti-imperialists included people like Alexander Hamilton who advocated for economic nationalism (the infant industry argument) in order to escape from indirect British economic control, but also people like Thomas Jefferson who advocated for the much more dangerous attitude of economic liberalism (laissez-faire). None of those revolutionaries, however, had the slightest intention of setting up a nation that would be entirely free from racism, sexism, or elitism in general, nor, for that matter, free from militarism or free from post-revolutionary, expansionist imperialism.

Getting back to our own period of history, the neoliberal/neofascist virus has infected practically all the world’s political organizations, not just most of those operating in the USA, and not just the ones belonging to the traditional, conservative or liberal spectrums. The world’s remaining “communist” parties, or at least those still in power, have also long since abandoned any pretensions that they may have had when they first started out, about being genuinely in favour of worker-peasant control over their countries. The ruling party in China being the most important example of an organization still officially using the word “communist” in its title while practising a curious combination of “red-billionaire” neoliberalism and neofascism instead. Another fascinating example of retaining one’s initial title while still doing exactly the opposite also applies to almost every (formerly) social-democratic organization on this planet, particularly those also retaining power, or any large degree of popular support in any particular country.

Right here in Québec, we are also living through a very horrendous period of history, particularly because of the tens of thousands of seniors already living with numerous kinds of severe health problems, prior to the arrival of the even more murderous coronavirus, and now dying off like flies in government-run, as well as in private-capitalist, care homes. Just like in the rest of the Western world, the vast majority of those now dying from COVID-19 come from those disgusting places euphemistically called “care” centres. Particularly since the provincial government made the initial mistake of concentrating all of its anti-viral strategy on the hospitals, postponing “non-essential” treatment of non-viral diseases for a later date, rather than on the considerably more dangerous care centres. Before coming up with the even more irrational idea of trying to convince hundreds of other people, including medical specialists who are currently under-employed in the hospitals, into helping the extremely overworked nurses and orderlies still toiling away, and also sometimes dying on the job, in those antediluvian care centres.

Where the under-staffing remains so severe that most of Québec’s disabled seniors are nevertheless still being treated like garbage in both the public and the private sections of that network, which have been denounced for decades as the most horrible institutions in Québec for anyone having to work there, let alone for anyone having to live there. This is the worst possible example of neoliberalism morphing into neofascism that currently exists in Québec, as well as underlining perfectly well Clifford Lincoln’s point about short-term political strategies. Simply because everyone in power in the entire world knew at least since the 1980s that a significant percentage of the hundreds of millions of pre-baby-boomers (born before 1945), and the baby-boomers themselves (born between 1945 and 1965), would need urgent medical help right now, forty years after neoliberalism began. To be sure, the majority of the world’s seniors, those living alongside their younger relatives in poorer countries (or poorer regions) where very few people of any age have access to modern medical care, are not necessarily better off.

Once again, in Québec just like everywhere else, the politicians responsible for this sorry state of affairs do not just come from the officially conservative, or officially liberal, parties mentioned above. They also came from governments run in the past by the Parti Québécois, a mildly left-wing nationalist party that has now been reduced to a tiny shadow of its former self. The PQ was originally founded in 1968, and started out promoting a program combining the long-term goals of Québec independence and social-democracy. It managed to get itself elected to provincial power, under various different leaders, from 1976 to 1985, as well as from 1994 to 2003 and, most recently, from 2012 to 2014.

From the very beginning, however, the PQ’s devotion to both of its original principles constantly wavered, under the ongoing barrage of pro-federalist and pro-business lobbies, that not only controlled anti-PQ parties like the Québec Liberal Party but also influenced several indecisive PQ leaders as well. I was also briefly involved with the PQ from 1981, when I served as an unsuccessful electoral candidate, until 1983, when I left the party to protest against its anti-labour stance, adopted during the worldwide recession caused by the central bankers’ monetarist “war on inflation”.

Of all the PQ leaders who came to power between 1976 and 2014, the least social-democratic (as well as the least nationalist) may very well have been premier Lucien Bouchard (1996-2001), who helped set up the system of partly public and partly private care homes for handicapped seniors that is currently responsible for almost all the COVID-19 deaths in Québec. Bouchard’s initial “contribution” to today’s care-home tragedy, as well as that of more recent PQ governments, however, was completely overshadowed by the much more bureaucratic machinations of the Québec Liberal Party’s health and social services ministers, particularly during Dr. Gaétan Barrette’s period of office (2014-2018).

But many of the other PQ leaders over the years also wavered from their original leftwing nationalist points of view, such as premier Bernard Landry (2001-2003), who was an enthusiastic supporter of the 1988 Canada-US (neoliberal) free-trade deal that eventually became NAFTA when Mexico joined (in 1994). Québec’s current premier since 2018, François Legault, was also a former PQ health minister (2002-2003), before quitting the PQ and founding his own political party, the Coalition Action Québec (CAQ), in 2011. The CAQ does not officially support either Québec independence or social-democracy as such, although it does not seem to be quite as firmly opposed to those two ideas as is the number one party in the official opposition, the aforementioned Québec Liberal Party, at least not until recently.

The PQ and the CAQ also belong to the same set of non-traditional political parties in the electoral part of the world that I was mentioning earlier, that are not part of the traditional set of parties possessing official titles like “Liberal” or “Conservative”, or titles often associated with such other old-fashioned, elitist-sounding words as “Republican”. Active politicians nowadays like François Legault therefore also seem to belong to the set of somewhat less fanatic allies of private or state capitalism, such as the Democratic Party’s main leaders, who do not seem to be quite as neoliberal, or as neofascist, as professional goofballs like Donald Trump.

Be that as it may, it would be just another mistake to conclude this blogpost on any kind of positive note, like those constantly being proposed by all the world’s eternal optimists. Who are always suggesting that we should be profiting from the current pandemic in order to do everything completely differently, “after the crisis is over”. Things like dumping neoliberalism and neofascism into the garbage once and for all, making sure that the health system is functioning properly and not just for rich people, as well as the education system and all the other social services. Getting rid of short-term electioneering and short-term profit maximization forever, and replacing all of that with the kind of “anticipatory, preventive and reformative planning” that Clifford Lincoln was talking about. And just basically behaving in a completely different way from that of the ultra-right-wing protester in front of the legislature in Albany, New York, last week, who held up an utterly pathetic poster accusing Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo of being a “communist”, because he too may have used the word “planning” in one of his speeches about the virus attack.

Of course I agree with Lincoln and all those other optimistic people that we should be using the crisis in order to do all those things. But social change of a fundamental nature can never be brought about simply by wishing that it were so. Personally, I am not aware of anything going on right now that could convince me that most human beings nowadays are truly ready to agitate in a really major way, for any or all of the things that we most definitely ought to be doing in the coming months, years and decades. In order to get rid of the legacy of the garbage policies that most of the world’s private and state capitalists have been following for the past forty years.

It seems to me that most of the people running the world nowadays are either complete and total reactionaries, or almost complete and total reactionaries. The people at the top, or near the top, do not seem to be willing to give up their numerous economic, political, social and/or cultural privileges so that the people on the bottom, or near the bottom, will be able to live decent lives again, in some cases, or to live decent lives for the first time ever, in many other cases. Most of the people possessing much more money, much more power and much more influence than everyone else, really and truly enjoy the current situation of facing a fake opposition, rather than the true and honest opponents that they used to face fifty or a hundred years ago. Way back when most of the communists really were communists, the social-democrats really were socialists, the left-wing nationalists really were left-wing nationalists and most of the union leaders really acted like union leaders. Rather than nowadays when most of those people have given up on all of those things, or do not truly believe in any of them any more.

Why help out the really old people, the really sick or handicapped people, the really poor people, the really oppressed people, the poorly educated people (aside from those who manage to get elected to office anyway), the people who never get to eat much, the people out of work for for the past several decades, the people constantly working compulsory overtime, the people getting murdered or beat up or shoved onto the ground all the time, the people who never receive adequate quantities of protective medical equipment, or sufficient quantities of any other useful kind of equipment no matter what they do—when no one is forcing folks on the top, or near the top, to do any of those things? In other words, the coronavirus is just another consequence of the virus of power.

The quicksand effect: sinking in deeper and deeper

The coronavirus pandemic seems to be getting worse and worse with every passing day, hundreds of thousands more cases constantly being added just about everywhere, especially in the USA, and tens of thousands more deaths, in many different places, than those that have been officially reported. Especially in China, which seems to have chalked up at least 15 times more victims than what has so far been acknowledged, according to clandestine corpse-counters based inside that country. Even the name given to the virus seems to be wrong, since it apparently started as far back as last September, or maybe November, and not in December at all, which means that we ought to be referring to COVIS-19 or COVIN-19, instead of calling it COVID-19.

The Chinese government tried really hard to sweep the problem under the rug at the beginning, before finally dealing with it head on. The whole world would have been a lot better off, however, if the dictatorship had succeeded in banning wild-animal meat-markets before anyone started dying, even in the ultra-poor, central regions around Wuhan, belonging to the traditional Han-majority. Even recently, Chinese officials reported that they had been forced to backtrack on a projected return to “normalcy”, given the arrival of new infections apparently caused by overseas Chinese returning home. At the same time the Chinese regime is doing its very best trying to convince all the other countries in the world that it has the best political system available on this planet. But its reputation as a beacon of hope for everyone, everywhere, has suffered an enormous hit, from which it should not be allowed to recover. Nothing that Chinese officialdom says about anything can ever be relied upon at face value.

Which is not to say that any other country can legitimately claim to have a much better system, nor can any other large bureaucracy, public or private, legitimately claim to be consistently avoiding fake news. Especially not those currently denouncing other people’s fake news the loudest: Donald Trump and his millions of clones, more or less evenly scattered all over the world. Anyone following the news (real or fake) in any format (newspapers, television, Internet), is constantly being told by some of the experts that in this kind of situation, human beings have a built-in tendency to be overly optimistic. And by another group of experts that in this kind of situation, human beings have a built-in tendency to be overly pessimistic.

As a result, none of the current predictions about the pandemic starting to go away right now should be believed by anyone, not for a long time to come. Neither should anyone believe that the coronavirus is going to end up killing everyone on the planet, all by itself. People have to use their own judgement, to the best of their abilities. In situations like these, none of the experts end up being all that expert, and none of the large bureaucracies are genuinely interested in taking care of everyone under their official jurisdiction. In any case, not nearly as much as they clearly exhibit a genuine interest for taking care of their own interests first. After all, even many of the owners of small Mom and Dad shops in everyone’s local neighbourhood lie, cheat and steal pretty much all the time, albeit on a much smaller scale than do any of the large bureaucracies.

As usually happens with every other major calamity in this world, such as accelerated environmental degradation or austerity programs deliberately aimed at victimizing the poor, the virus especially affects people already suffering from previously existing conditions. Even some of the world’s major corporations, like those in the airline industry (“air sardine”), are also suffering more than others from the consequences of this contagion. Not only because of the airlines strong ties to the collapsed tourism business, but also because they were also already fragile even before the recent viral outbreak. Normally, the fragility of huge corporations, constantly seeking to maximize short-term profits at the expense of everyone else, should not concern people nearly as much as the fragility of hospitalized patients, especially those undergoing intensive care. Unfortunately, most large corporations always seem to possess an uncanny capacity for getting their victims to help them solve their problems, even in the midst of a murderous pandemic.

Most of the world’s medieval confinement strategies, currently affecting about 40% of the world’s population, were also put into place to cover up official denial and prior stupidity among all those countries that refused to, or were unable to, test large numbers of people right off the bat (so to speak) and thereby zero in on treating those who needed help the most. Every country, particularly in the West, that had succumbed to the neoliberal siren-call of just-in-time economies, not only for ordinary “widget-making” but also for health, education and social welfare, suddenly found itself unable to produce the tons of protective medical equipment, or ordinary medication, required in times of crisis.

Unlike South Korea and Taiwan, the world’s stupidest governments completely ignored the lessons of the SARS scare, occurring only about fifteen years ago, and decided to rely instead on imports from places like China and India, which (surprise, surprise) needed those same supplies for their own enormous populations. As usually happens in such cases, the worldwide war between ruthless buyers of those supplies offered an excellent opportunity for unscrupulous traders, most of them belonging to organized crime syndicates, to accumulate billions more dollars, profiting from the tremendous increase in the death rate, especially among older people. For their part, South Korea and Taiwan apparently used electronic tracking, including cellphone information, in order to test targeted populations, spying on their own citizens for their own good.

Autocratic Russia, and many other countries like it, also used electronic information to spy even more than before on their own populations, blaming it all on the virus as well. But without doing much at all in the way of testing after that, nor in taking care of the general population. Unfortunately, no government, just like no private corporation, can ever be trusted to use such information, or any other kind of information for that matter, exclusively in the public interest. Personalized dictatorships, like the one in Turkmenistan that banned even national-media use of the very word “coronavirus”, deliberately avoid doing anything at all about the much-maligned public interest. Preferring instead to concentrate on staying in power forever, and enjoying the perks that go along with not sharing anything good or valuable with anyone outside their number one honcho’s immediate circle.

True to form, the duly-elected, ultra-right wing populist government in Hungary also decided to use all the worldwide hype about the virus as a scapegoat for another power grab, banning future elections and reserving all decision-making for itself, without setting any time limit whatsoever. Which is quite similar to the same ruling party’s proclamation of a state of emergency during the European migration crisis of 2015. That is still in place nowadays even though that particular “emergency” was resolved very quickly, and never really affected Hungary at all. Even if the world manages to wipe out the coronavirus just as quickly, which does not seem remotely possible at this point, no one knows how many years it will take before the next pandemic breaks out.

In the meantime, the more strenuously that countries all over the world struggle to get out of the quicksand created by the coronavirus, the deeper they sink down into the morass. This is because most of the countries in the world are also suffering from a simultaneous scissors crisis. Vaguely similar to the first recorded scissors crisis, that took place in the USSR back in 1923, during Lenin’s semi-return to capitalism (“the new economic policy”), when industrial prices shot up much faster than agricultural prices. In the current, worldwide, scissors crisis, the ever-increasing number of deaths from the pandemic has forced most countries to adopt the kind of confinement strategies that result in a collapsed economy, with many of the world’s major industries and services shut down completely.

Dozens of governments have abandoned neoliberalism, at least for the time being, stepping in massively to offer necessary aid to private (and public) employers in hundreds of different industries and services. Such as the Canadian government’s numerous new programs for the duration of the crisis, including an offer to finance 75% of the private-sector salaries of millions of ordinary employees during a “carefully calculated period of transition” back to a “normal economy”. As well as similar programs currently being adopted by provincial and municipal governments in that country, and many others. Over the past forty years of neoliberalism, massive tax evasion by ultra-rich people and their corporations, backed up by complacent politicians in power, led to extremely serious austerity programs aimed at reducing (but not eliminating) government debt, that caused a great deal of suffering among ordinary citizens, through massive government cut-backs at all levels, all over the world. As well as employing millions of severely underpaid workers, in public and private services such as residences exclusively reserved for old people.

Now, however, the pandemic has forced all those governments (national, regional and local) to rack up a new, even more enormous debt load that will have to be paid back to the financiers at some point. In order to avoid the kind of complete meltdown of high finance that almost wiped out world money markets back in 2008. It would be nice if we did not have to worry about the God-forsaken financiers, either, but like the world’s other large corporations, they always seem to be able to get everyone else to pay for their excesses. True to form, almost all the big financial institutions in the world (banks, shadow banks, insurance companies and so on) have consistently refused to help out during the current crisis, by eliminating dividends completely, or by substantially reducing credit-card interest rates. But just because they refuse to help anyone right now does not mean that they are not looking forward to forcing everyone else to help them again a couple of months from now.

This also means that dozens of countries that could presumably have activated already-planned, long-term strategies to save the natural environment from any further calamities are now in the process of cancelling those plans for quite a long time to come. Which means that any small progress that any country may have made in the past to avoid climate change on a global scale has now been wiped out. In the same way, countries all over the world that were also debating, prior to the pandemic, about whether or not to embark on bold new programs to spend a lot more government money helping ordinary people (rather than just underwriting the world’s biggest personal fortunes), will now be mothballing all those ideas as well. Meaning that the USA, for example, may very well never adopt Bernie Sanders proposal for installing a public health system like the one that Canada already possesses, while Canada may never go one step further by adopting a previously discussed, nation-wide, public drug-paying program.

Other, much poorer, countries like India will probably never succeed in providing indoor toilets for all of their enormous populations, and may not not even succeed in getting half-way to that laudable goal. Similarly, China may never get anywhere close to what, at least until recently, used to be called “Western levels” of average wages and salaries. Brazil (as well as many other countries) may never be able to clean up its enormous urban slum neighbourhoods (favelas). South Africa may never succeed in seeing its black-majority population become equally as prosperous as its white-minority population, which still controls most of the national economy, a quarter-century after apartheid. Algeria, and dozens of other unfortunate countries, may never be able to get rid of their ultra-corrupt, post-independence ruling elites. And so on and so forth, in practically every single country in the world.

For at least the past 50 years, anti-democratic control over the general population has continuously been intensified as a consequence of every difficult situation that arose, from the war on inflation, through the war on terrorism, all the way over to the war on the coronavirus. In some countries at least, some of that authoritarianism has also been accompanied by the adoption of a few beneficial interventions. While in other cases, such as that of the federal government of the USA, the national authorities try their best to do as little as possible, while still becoming much more authoritarian than they were before, anyway.

Some honest observers have come to the conclusion that despite several earlier reports about people banding together in solidarity to help the less fortunate during the crisis, the overall effect of the pandemic on every continent will most probably be a deepening of social rifts within the general population. Krzysztof Pelc, for example, a professor of political science at McGill University, recently predicted (in the “Montreal Gazette” on March 26, 2020) that the rift between white-collar and blue-collar workers will probably get even worse than it already has been getting, as will the rift between larger and smaller firms, and the one between younger people and older people.

Thereby adding to, and intensifying, negative effects on those already huge groups of people that have been downtrodden since just about forever: the lower classes of society, such as the poor and the chronically unemployed, as well as most of the female population all over the world, and a very large number of ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities in various different countries. Not to mention dozens of mistreated ethnic majorities as well, such as the black South Africans that were referenced earlier. Or even the francophone majority in the province of Québec, which has lost a lot of ground recently to the anglophone minority. Even though it is not nearly as far behind its more prosperous minority as is the black majority in South Africa.

Not to forget either the fact that many countries are not just divided into one ethnic and/or religious majority and several different kinds of minorities. A large number of those minorities are also divided up into even smaller minorities, that are even more downtrodden and exploited than most of the other people in their region, such as the “Khoi-San” minority in the southern part of Africa. Indigenous peoples all over the world do not just have to deal with much larger, “settler” populations (themselves often divided into dominant and dominated sections as in Canada/Québec), they also have to deal with political divisions between rival, dominant and dominated indigenous groupings. In many different parts of the world, such as China, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Brazil and Algeria, an ethnic-religious form of fundamentalism (regional imperialism) is still trying to wipe out minority populations altogether, by absorbing them all into some kind of  imagined “common origin”, imposed from above.

Reacting to the idiocy of recent neoliberal globalization, some observers have been proposing a new kind of world characterized by what one citizen has called “altruistic nationalism” (see Marc Boucher’s letter to the editor in the March 26, 2020, edition of the Montréal daily, “Le Devoir”). In other words, a new variety of all-round nation-building (political, economic, social and cultural nationalism) that is not at all an old-fashioned cover-up for some gang of corrupt politicians trying to grab everything for themselves. But instead putting into place a government that is extremely kind to the natural environment in every country, as well as to every one of its citizens, no matter which social class, sex, ethnic group, religion or absence of religion, to which they all belong. I wrote a 200-page book about this kind of thing back in 1992, that I called “Universal Nationalism”, but I never succeeded in getting it published anywhere. The least that can be said, however, is that the world we live in does not seem to be moving in that rather utopian direction, not even a little bit.

Strangely enough, all the horrible things already mentioned, up to and including the coronavirus outbreak, are taking place in the real world, in spite of the fact that all the world’s ruling elites were repeatedly informed in advance about all those developing crises, including the likelihood of a new pandemic. As Éric Desrosiers pointed out in an article in another edition of “Le Devoir” (“Ces crises inattendues qui n’en sont pas”, April 3, 2020), a group of highly intelligent people at the World Economic Forum (WEF) have been sending out extensive planning reports over the past several years, expressly aimed at the ruling elites, about all the different kinds of major crises currently facing humanity, specifically including pandemics. Another reasonably well-informed individual, by the name of Bill Gates, also sent out a similar reminder five years ago.

Not only that, but the WEF reports have also been putting the accent on how inter-connected all these different crises really are, just like I have been pointing out, over and over again, in my blogposts. It is not as though any of those ruling-class people can legitimately claim that they have not been made aware of all those constantly accelerating and cross-infecting dangers, the ones that we have already experienced as well as those that are yet to come.

What kind of blithering idiot does such a major decision-maker have to be, in order to ignore all those warning signs completely, at least since the neoliberal tandem of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan first came to power, forty years ago? How can anyone in the West, in particular, have been so dim-witted as to have handed over control of a very large portion of the entire world supply of manufactured goods, including medical supplies and disease-controlling pills, to the oddly-named “People’s” Republic of China? A grade three level reader like Donald Trump did not, after all, become president of the USA, still the world’s most important country, back in 1979 or 1980, but only in 2017. So not all of this incredible stupidity can be blamed exclusively on people like the USA’s current, completely idiotic “criminal-in-chief” (see Élisabeth Vallet’s excellent article, “Le petit président” in “Le Devoir”, 4-5 avril 2020).

Other leaders as well, such as the UK’s Boris Johnson, who has also caught the coronavirus, and is currently being treated in an intensive care unit, are nevertheless being hypocritical whenever they make public pronouncements these days about how a few ignorant people are putting other people’s lives in danger when they flout the current rules of confinement. On the one hand, it is certainly true, like Johnson said, that everyone ought to be following those rules to the letter, in every part of the world where governments have decided to put those rules into place. Even people living in parts of the world where the local governments are too delinquent to have adopted those policies should also try to observe the same rules anyway.

But a guy like Johnson, even though he has now been stricken by the disease, spent his entire life before that as a member of the ruling elite, and has been a Conservative Party stalwart for the past couple of decades. Which means that he is hardly well-placed to be accusing others of being inconsiderate of people whose lives are on the line (an endangered group of people to which Johnson now unfortunately belongs). Tory governments in the UK have been mistreating vulnerable people in that country since that party was founded several centuries ago, in a particularly intense way during Margaret Thatcher’s reign (1979-1990), and as recently as Theresa May’s period in power (2016-2019), not to mention during the early days of the Johnson regime. Millions of people in the UK have lived much more miserable lives than they otherwise would have lived if the Conservative Party had not been in power so often between 1979 and the present day. Many thousands of them have also died prematurely as a result of their austerity attacks on the poor, the unemployed and the physically and mentally disabled parts of the British population.

The Tony Blair faction of the British Labour Party (“New Labour”) also supported a somewhat milder version of neoliberalism during its periods in power as well. To be sure, the same kind of neoliberal garbage was also practised in dozens of other countries, such as in all the nations of the European Union as well as in Canada and the USA. Mostly by other Conservative parties (Canada) and by certain Republican parties (the USA), not to mention being also practised, to a slightly lesser extent, by other Liberal parties (Canada and Québec) and by certain Democratic parties (the USA). (For their part, the names of the leading political parties in the EU countries keep changing all the time, without a noticeable effect on the outcome.)

Flouting the rules of confinement is also not the exclusive prerogative of active young men in various different countries. Fundamentalist religion has also raised its ugly head once again, in many different parts of the world, seeking to participate as strongly as possible in ignoring the rules on social distancing. Acting as if all the world’s religious zealots wanted to go back to the old-fashioned way of dealing with epidemics, by proclaiming that mass death is just the “Heavenly Father”’s way of punishing us all for not believing in the common religious mythology of accepting great suffering in the (only) real world. So that all the true believers can be saved instead in the (unfortunately non-existent) “next world”. Different versions of this kind of nonsense characterize not only the fundamentalist factions within the world’s monotheist religions, but also all the similar factions inside all the other religions as well (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, animism and so on).

Hence the refusal of several backward states, mostly in the rural “Bible Belt” regions of the USA, to embark on that country’s national confinement program. Which is readily tolerated in that nation because its equally backward president keeps on desperately proclaiming that he wants to fill up all the churches, if not by Easter, then as soon as possible after that. Since he knows that most of his electoral base belongs to the huge gang of “redeemed sinners” who cling to religion so fiercely because they know deep down inside that they do not really live in a “truly Christian” way all that often. Church service on Sunday being absolutely necessary to atone for what they have been doing to their “fellow man” during the other six days of the week. Which is also why Brazil’s born-again neofascist, Jair Bolsonaro, got a step ahead of the US president by declaring churches in his country to be “essential services” during the coronavirus pandemic. Reacting more quickly than the NRA (Neanderthal Rifle Association) in the USA, which wants gun shops (of all things) to be also declared essential services.

Not to be outdone, fundamentalist Muslims in Iran have recently been shown on national and international television deliberately licking religious icons in their country, over and over again. In order to prove once and for all that because of their faith it is “absolutely certain” that Allah will be preserving their lives for a long time to come, while the unbelievers will all be dying off like flies. Such behaviour also being replicated in the kissing of similar icons currently going on in Christian Orthodox churches in Russia, as well as in other parts of Eastern Europe. One Orthodox Jewish city in Israel has also recently been cordoned off by the Israeli government because of the much higher incidence of the disease in that particularly religious place as well. Which may indicate that during the course of the pandemic all sorts of different people’s faith may turn out to be sorely tested, if true believers all over the the world end up dying just as often, rather than less often, than all the God-forsaken miscreants.

The same sort of thing has also been taking place in parts of the Montréal region of Québec, where the virus has been particularly virulent inside several Jewish congregations, especially among ultra-orthodox, Hassidic, communities. Some of which were getting together in synagogues, for well-attended weddings, up to and including the second week of March, three months after the official beginning of the pandemic. All such activity has since been severely condemned, if not necessarily eliminated, by officials representing al the different factions of the Jewish community. But not before quite a few people got sick, even though the numbers involved were considerably lower than the much more serious situations caused by the holding of large sporting events, during the same period, in countries like Italy and Spain. Many Jewish people in the Montréal region were also affected by their close ties with Jewish communities in hard-hit New York City. As well as by the return of several thousand Canadians (many of them belonging to the Jewish faith) from southern Florida, known as “snowbirds” (older Canadians who spend the winter months of every year in the warmer parts of the USA).

Non-Jewish people in Québec have also been duly reminded recently that they ought not to be indulging in anti-Semitism, as some of them so often do, since anti-Semitism, like all the other forms of racism, always makes every bad situation even worse than it was before. However, racism does not just consist of indulging in increasingly negative reactions toward constantly targeted people, often in the form of (scapegoat) conspiracy theories. It also consists in deliberately exonerating people, for religious reasons, who are indeed exhibiting dangerous behaviour. People who choose to congregate in large numbers three months after the official outbreak of a pandemic, even if they did so prior to the promulgation of strict confinement rules by a nearby government, are nevertheless putting other people’s lives in danger. As do ultra-religious people from any religion, such as evangelical Christians, who put human “herd immunity” in danger whenever they refuse to get their children properly vaccinated.

Unfortunately, nothing that has been going on during the pandemic, just like nothing that happened during other enormous crises in the past (such as the Great Depression or the Second World War), ever seems to convince people to change the system in any real way. Even the fact of having millions of old people die off a lot more rapidly than usual, in thousands of private and public retirement homes, does not seem to be enough. All we have so far put into place as a result of all the great catastrophes of the past, is either an almost completely privatized world in which practically everything is run for the exclusive benefit of a very small number of ultra-rich people, or a much less privatized system run by huge state bureaucracies that often treat almost everyone almost as poorly as the ultra-privatized systems do. Or something half-way in between those two extremes. As a species, we do not seem to have the capacity to put into place a world-system of some sort that really works for the benefit of the vast majority of the entire world’s population, erring neither on the side of total confinement nor on the side of a chaotic free-for-all.